These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
6. Can eyewitnesses correct for external influences on their lineup identifications? The actual/counterfactual assessment paradigm. Charman SD; Wells GL J Exp Psychol Appl; 2008 Mar; 14(1):5-20. PubMed ID: 18377163 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The effect of post-identification feedback, delay, and suspicion on accurate eyewitnesses. Quinlivan DS; Neuschatz JS; Douglass AB; Wells GL; Wetmore SA Law Hum Behav; 2012 Jun; 36(3):206-14. PubMed ID: 22667810 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Cueing confidence in eyewitness identifications: influence of biased lineup instructions and pre-identification memory feedback under varying lineup conditions. Leippe MR; Eisenstadt D; Rauch SM Law Hum Behav; 2009 Jun; 33(3):194-212. PubMed ID: 18600436 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Effects of postidentification feedback on eyewitness identification and nonidentification confidence. Semmler C; Brewer N; Wells GL J Appl Psychol; 2004 Apr; 89(2):334-46. PubMed ID: 15065979 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Instruction bias and lineup presentation moderate the effects of administrator knowledge on eyewitness identification. Greathouse SM; Kovera MB Law Hum Behav; 2009 Feb; 33(1):70-82. PubMed ID: 18594956 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. On the diagnosticity of multiple-witness identifications. Clark SE; Wells GL Law Hum Behav; 2008 Oct; 32(5):406-22. PubMed ID: 18095147 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The dynamic interaction between eyewitnesses and interviewers: the impact of differences in perspective on memory reports and interviewer behavior. Douglass AB; Brewer N; Semmler C; Bustamante L; Hiley A Law Hum Behav; 2013 Aug; 37(4):290-301. PubMed ID: 23646916 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Investigating investigators: examining the impact of eyewitness identification evidence on student-investigators. Boyce MA; Lindsay DS; Brimacombe CA Law Hum Behav; 2008 Oct; 32(5):439-53. PubMed ID: 18060486 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Eyewitness testimony. Wells GL; Olson EA Annu Rev Psychol; 2003; 54():277-95. PubMed ID: 12209024 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Double-blind photo lineups using actual eyewitnesses: an experimental test of a sequential versus simultaneous lineup procedure. Wells GL; Steblay NK; Dysart JE Law Hum Behav; 2015 Feb; 39(1):1-14. PubMed ID: 24933175 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Biased lineup instructions and face identification from video images. Thompson WB; Johnson J J Gen Psychol; 2008 Jan; 135(1):23-36. PubMed ID: 18318406 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Blind lineup administration as a prophylactic against the postidentification feedback effect. Dysart JE; Lawson VZ; Rainey A Law Hum Behav; 2012 Aug; 36(4):312-9. PubMed ID: 22849416 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The selective cue integration framework: a theory of postidentification witness confidence assessment. Charman SD; Carlucci M; Vallano J; Gregory AH J Exp Psychol Appl; 2010 Jun; 16(2):204-18. PubMed ID: 20565204 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]